The appointment of a Receiver in a partnership dispute is not mandatory and is at the discretion of the court. In a suit for injunction only, the appointment of a Receiver is not necessary as the ultimate relief sought is not the winding up of the firm or the distribution of its assets.

V.S. Kokje, J.-Charan Das Grover, his mother Veera Devi and his two sons Devendra Grover and Ashok Grover were running a partnership business in the name of M/s. Green Hotel, Station Road, Bikaner. On July 8, 1995 this partnership deed was dissolved. Ashok Kumar brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikaner against three other partners praying for a permanent injunction restraining them from using and transferring the properties of the Firm. In this suit an application for temporary injunction was moved by plaintiff Ashok Kumar claiming a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from using the properties given in the list attached with the application till the accounts are settled between the parties. The plaintiff Ashok Kumar also moved an application for appointment of (sic) not transfer it without the consent of the plaintiff the plaintiff was given a right to go on the premises for seeing the accounts of the dissolved firm during normal working hours. It was also directed that the defendants would give a duplicate key of the lock put on the place where firm’s property was stored. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the rejection of the application for appointment of Receiver as also against temporary injunction granted. The defendants also filed an appeal against the grant of temporary injunction against them. These three appeals were decided by a common order dated December 21, 1995 by the Additional District Judge, Bikaner. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed all the three appeals and maintained the order of the trial Court.

2. Now S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 175/ 96 is filed by the original defendant-C. D. Grover against the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court against him. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 195/96 is filed by the plaintiff Ashok Kumar against dismissal of his appeal in the temporary injunction matter and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 193/96 is filed by the plaintiff Ashok Kumar against the dismissal of his appeal in the matter of appointment of Receiver.

3. As the above three revision petitions arise out of the common appellate order, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

4. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 193/96 relates to the matter of appointment of Receiver. In this case the tria

Court has observed while rejecting the prayer for appointment of Receiver that the suit was for injunction only, and if the Receiver is appointed in such a suit, after a permanent injunction is granted, no further orders could be passed about the properties taken in charge by the Receiver. In other words what the trial Court meant was that this was not the relief which could be granted finally in the suit. The trial Court clearly committed an error in approaching the case from this angle. Actually what it had to consider was whether Receiver was necessary to be appointed in this case for preserving the properties in dispute, till the disposal of the suit before him. The real question before the trial Court was whether it was just and proper under the circumstances to appoint a Receiver for the properties of the dissolved Firm. The appellate Court while disposing of the appeal in respect of appointment of Receiver observed that the property of the firm was secured by interim orders and in the circumstances of the case there was no point in appointing a Receiver. Thus the orders passed by the Courts below are not comprehensive and the matter has to be looked at from all angles by this Court.

5. Thelearned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the decisions of various High Courts in support Of his contention that in the matters of partnership properties, Receiver Has to be appointed as of course.

6. The first decision, he cited was a Division Bench decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Tilak Chand Jain vs. Darshan Lal Jain, AIR 1985 J & K 50. My attention was; drawn to paragraphs 50 and 60 of this Judgment in which